A group of authors, including Ta-Nehisi Coates and Sarah Silverman, has accused Meta Platforms of using pirated books to train its AI systems with CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s approval. Newly disclosed court documents filed in California allege that Meta knowingly relied on the LibGen dataset, which contains millions of pirated works, to develop its large language model, Llama.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2023, claims Meta infringed on copyright by using the authors’ works without permission. The authors argue that internal Meta communications reveal concerns within the company about the dataset’s legality, which were ultimately overruled. Meta has not yet responded to the latest allegations.
The case is one of several challenging the use of copyrighted materials to train AI systems. While defendants in similar lawsuits have cited fair use, the authors contend that newly uncovered evidence strengthens their claims. They have requested permission to file an updated complaint, adding computer fraud allegations and revisiting dismissed claims related to copyright management information.
US District Judge Vince Chhabria has allowed the authors to file an amended complaint but expressed doubts about the validity of some new claims. The outcome of the case could have broader implications for how AI companies utilise copyrighted content in training data.
Nvidia has voiced strong opposition to a reported plan by the Biden administration to impose new restrictions on the export of AI chips, urging the outgoing president to avoid making a decision that could impact the incoming Trump administration. The company warned that such measures would harm the US economy, hinder innovation, and benefit adversaries like China. Nvidia’s Vice President, Ned Finkle, called the policy a “last-minute” move that would leave a legacy of criticism from both US industry and the global community.
The proposed restrictions, as reported by Bloomberg, aim to limit AI chip exports to certain countries, particularly targeting China to prevent the enhancement of its military capabilities. While some nations would face outright bans, the rules would also cap the computing power that can be exported to others. The Biden administration has yet to confirm the details, and requests for comment from the White House and the Commerce Department went unanswered.
Industry groups, including the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents major tech firms like Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, have expressed concern about the policy. They argue that it would impose arbitrary limitations on US companies’ global competitiveness and risk ceding market leadership to foreign rivals. Nvidia warned that these restrictions could push international markets toward alternative technologies, undermining the US technology sector.
President-elect Donald Trump, who begins his second term on January 20, previously enacted technology export restrictions to China during his first term, citing national security concerns. Nvidia’s statement reflects apprehension about the continuity of US policy on AI chip exports under the new administration.
The UK‘s competition regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), announced it may accept remedies proposed by Synopsys and Ansys to address concerns over their $35 billion merger. The deal, announced in January of last year, involves Synopsys acquiring Ansys, a company known for its software used in industries like aerospace and sports equipment manufacturing.
The CMA outlined the proposed remedies, which include the sale of Ansys’ power consumption analysis product for digital chips and Synopsys’ global optics and photonics software business. The regulator has until March 5 to decide whether to accept these remedies, though it can extend the deadline to 6 May.
Synopsys expressed satisfaction with the CMA’s progress and reiterated its commitment to working closely with the authority. The outcome of the regulator’s review could significantly impact the completion of the merger, which aims to enhance the companies’ capabilities in chip design software.
A prominent technology trade group has urged the Biden administration to reconsider a proposed rule that would restrict global access to US-made AI chips, warning that the measure could undermine America’s leadership in the AI sector. The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), representing major companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, expressed concerns that the restrictions could unfairly limit US companies’ ability to compete globally while allowing foreign rivals to dominate the market.
The proposed rule, expected to be released as soon as Friday, is part of the Commerce Department’s broader strategy to regulate AI chip exports and prevent misuse, particularly by adversaries like China. The restrictions aim to curb the potential for AI to enhance China’s military capabilities. However, in a letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, ITI CEO Jason Oxman criticised the administration’s urgency in finalising the rule, warning of ‘significant adverse consequences’ if implemented hastily. Oxman called for a more measured approach, such as issuing a proposed rule for public feedback rather than enacting an immediate policy.
Industry leaders have been vocal in their opposition, describing the draft rule as overly broad and damaging. The Semiconductor Industry Association raised similar concerns earlier this week, and Oracle’s Executive Vice President Ken Glueck slammed the measure as one of the most disruptive ever proposed for the US tech sector. Glueck argued the rule would impose sweeping regulations on the global commercial cloud industry, stifling innovation and growth.
While the administration has yet to comment on the matter, the growing pushback highlights the tension between safeguarding national security and maintaining US dominance in the rapidly evolving field of AI.
Apple remains unable to sell its iPhone 16 in Indonesia despite agreeing to build a production facility in the country, according to Indonesia’s industry minister, Agus Gumiwang Kartasasmita. The ban stems from regulations requiring smartphones sold domestically to include at least 35% locally-made components—a threshold Apple has not met.
While Apple plans to invest $1 billion in a facility on Batam island to produce its Airtag tracking devices, the industry ministry clarified that this does not qualify as contributing to iPhone production. Kartasasmita emphasised that only phone components would satisfy the local content rules necessary for certification to sell iPhones in Indonesia.
Apple, which lacks manufacturing facilities in the country, has maintained its presence through application developer academies since 2018. Despite two days of discussions between Kartasasmita and Apple’s vice president of global government affairs, Nick Ammann, the company’s proposals for ‘innovative investment’ failed to meet Indonesia’s regulatory standards for smartphone sales.
The planned Batam facility, expected to launch operations next year, underscores Apple’s interest in expanding its footprint in Indonesia, a nation of 280 million people. However, the iPhone 16’s path to market in the region remains uncertain.
Apple has announced rare discounts on its latest iPhone models in China, offering up to 500 yuan ($68.50) off in a bid to counter growing competition from domestic rivals like Huawei. The promotion, running from 4 January to 7, applies to several iPhone models when purchased through specific payment methods, such as WeChat Pay or Alipay.
The flagship iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max, priced at 7,999 yuan and 9,999 yuan, respectively, will receive a maximum discount of 500 yuan. Meanwhile, the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus will see a 400 yuan reduction. The offer extends to older iPhone models and other products, including MacBook laptops and iPad tablets, with discounts ranging from 200 to 300 yuan.
That move comes as Apple faces a challenging environment in China, where economic pressures and intensifying competition have weighed on consumer spending. Huawei has reemerged as a formidable competitor, significantly boosting its market presence with locally-made chipsets and aggressive pricing.
While Apple briefly dropped out of China’s top five smartphone vendors in mid-2024, it regained some ground later in the year despite a slight dip in sales. By offering these discounts, Apple aims to retain its footing in the world’s largest smartphone market amid Huawei’s resurgence and a cautious economic climate.
Instacart has joined Uber in a legal challenge against a new Seattle ordinance regulating how app-based workers can be deactivated. The law, set to take effect in January, requires companies to provide gig workers with a 14-day notice of deactivation, base decisions on reasonable policies, and allow human review of all deactivations.
Seattle officials describe the legislation as a landmark move to ensure worker rights in the gig economy. Advocacy groups support the law, arguing that it addresses unfair deactivations and offers greater job security for app-based workers.
Instacart and Uber, however, claim the ordinance infringes on constitutional rights, federal laws, and operational safety. This lawsuit is part of broader disputes between tech companies and cities over labour regulations in the gig economy. Seattle has pledged to defend its policies, emphasising its commitment to protecting workers in modern app-driven industries.
A German court has ordered Signify, the world’s largest lighting maker, to recall and destroy certain products sold since 2017, citing patent infringement claims made by Seoul Semiconductor, a South Korean firm. The Düsseldorf court also ruled that Signify could face fines of up to €250,000 ($259,925) for each violation of the order, according to a statement from Seoul Semiconductor.
Signify, headquartered in the Netherlands and spun off from Philips in 2016, has not yet responded to requests for comment. The court ruling adds to the challenges faced by the company, which has a global reputation in the lighting industry.
Seoul Semiconductor, a leader in light-emitting diode (LED) technology, invests heavily in innovation, allocating about 10% of its revenue to research and development. The company boasts a portfolio of over 18,000 patents and has pursued legal action against multinational corporations to protect its intellectual property rights.
Vietnam’s new internet law, known as ‘Decree 147,’ came into effect Wednesday, requiring platforms like Facebook and TikTok to verify user identities and share data with authorities upon request. Critics view the move as a crackdown on freedom of expression, with activists warning it will stifle dissent and blur the lines between legal and illegal online activity. Under the rules, tech companies must store verified information alongside users’ names and dates of birth and remove government-designated “illegal” content within 24 hours.
The decree also impacts the booming social commerce sector by allowing only verified accounts to livestream. Additionally, it imposes restrictions on gaming for minors, limiting sessions to one hour and a maximum of 180 minutes daily. Vietnam, with over 65 million Facebook users and a growing gaming population, may see significant disruptions in online behaviour and businesses.
Critics liken the law to China’s tight internet controls. Activists and content creators have expressed fear of persecution, citing recent examples like the 12-year prison sentence for a YouTuber critical of the government. Despite the sweeping measures, some local businesses and gamers remain sceptical about enforcement, suggesting a wait-and-see approach to the decree’s real-world impact.
Google has proposed a legal alternative to a United States Department of Justice recommendation to dismantle its Chrome browser. Instead, the company suggests barring itself from using app licensing agreements to secure default software positions.
The proposal follows a landmark ruling declaring Google a monopoly. The government seeks stronger measures, including a ban on exclusive deals ensuring Google’s dominance on smartphones and other devices.
Judge Amit Mehta’s decision on antitrust remedies is expected to influence the tech industry. Google plans to appeal any adverse ruling.
